Baldwin I
"Iron-arm" (Baudouin I "Bras de Fer", Balduinus
Ferreorum-brachiorum)

Count Baldwin I, ancestor of the counts of Flanders, first
appears in history in the year 862, when Judith, daughter of king
Charles the Bald, and successively widow of the two Anglo-Saxon
kings Æthelwulf and Æthelbald, eloped with him, with the
assistance of Judith's brother Louis (later king Louis II)
["Karolus per Remi civitatem Suessionis venit. Ubi non
incerto nuncio comperit, quia filia eius Iudith, relica scilicet
Edelboldi regis Anglorum, quae, possessionibus venditis quas in
Anglorum regno optinuerat, ad patrem rediit et in Silvanectis
civitatem debito reginae honore sub tuitione paterna et regia
atque episcopali custodia servabatur, donec, si se continere non
posset, secundum apostolum, scilicet competenter ac legaliter,
nuberet, Balduinum comitem, ipso lenocinante, et fratre suo
Hludowico consentiente, mutato habitu est secuta; sed et quia
Hludowicus, filius eius, a praefatis Guntfrido [et
Gozfrido] sollicitatus, relictis fidelibus patris, cum
paucis noctu aufugit et transfuga ad se sollicitantes pervenit."
(Translation: Charles came through Rheims to the city of
Soissons, where he learned news from an undoubted source [about
his daughter Judith and his son Louis.] Judith, widow of
Æthelbald, king of the English, having sold the possessions
which she had obtained in the kingdom of England, had returned to
her father, and was kept with the honor due to a queen under the
guardianship of her father under royal and episcopal custody in
the city of Senlis, until, if he could not contain her, she
should be properly and legally married according to the apostles.
[Charles learned that] Judith, changing her clothes, had followed
count Baldwin by his instigation, with the consent of her brother
Louis; and that his son Louis, urged by the aforesaid Guntfrid
[and Gozfrid], had abandoned his loyalty to his father, and had
run away in the night with a few men and had gone in refuge to
those urging him.) Ann. Bert., s.a. 862, 56-7]. Charles
asked his bishops to anathemize Baldwin and Judith, but he
reconciled with them the next year at the pope's request, when
Baldwin and Judith were married [Ann. Bert., s.a. 863,
66 (see below)]. Flodoard mentions two relevant letters of
Hincmar of Reims during this time, one to bishop Hungarius of
Utrecht, urging that Hungarius warn the Viking Roric, then ruling
at Dorestadt in Frisia, not to receive Baldwin, and another with
the same warning to Roric himself [Flodoard, Historia
Remensis Ecclesiae iii, 23, 26, MGH SS 13: 529, 541]. A
document based on a charter of king Charles the Bald, dated 13
April 870, but having later interpolations in its present form,
mentions a "vir venerabilis Balduinus" who was
abbot of Saint-Pierre de Gand [Cart. S.-Pierre de Gand, 1: 19-20
(#13); Prou (1920), 61]. It has been argued that the name of the
abbot was one of the interpolations [e.g., Sproemberg (1935),
27-8], but these arguments were not accepted by Ganshof or
Grierson [Ganshof (1937), 375-9; Grierson (1939)], and the most
natural interpretation of this record is that count Baldwin I
himself was lay-abbot of Saint-Pierre de Gand. In 871, Baldwin
was sent by Charles along with abbot Gauzlin to negotiate with
Charles's rebellious son Carloman [Ann. Bert., s.a. 871,
115]. The Annales Vedastini record his death in 879
["Balduinus comes moritur sepeliturque in Sithiu"
Ann. Vedast. 43-4]. The epithet of "Iron-arm"
usually attributed to him appears in the work of Wimann (d.
1192), who attributed the nickname to his strength and audacity
["... Balduinus comes Flandrie, filius Odocri, vir audax
et fortis, ita ut Ferreorum-brachiorum vocaretur, ..."
Wimann, Liber de possessionibus sancti Vedasti, MGH SS
13: 711]. Additions to Annales Vedastini give him the
epithets of Bonus (the Good) and Ferreus (Iron)
[Ann. Vedast. 44]. Beyond the indication that he was
lay-abbot of Saint-Pierre de Gand, there is no contemporary
evidence indicating the specific pagi over which he held
authority. Because his son Baldwin II clearly held authority
there, Flanders (pagus Flandrensis) would be one obvious
choice, and would make him a neighbor of Roric, thus explaining
the above letters of Hincmar. It seems likely that he was count
of Flanders by the time of his death at least, if not much
earlier, but this is not directly documented. He is also likely
to have benefitted in some way by the dispossession of count
Ingelram sometime between 870 and 875 (see below), but the
details here are also unclear. [See, e.g., Sproemberg (1935),
Ganshof (1937), Grierson (1938)]

Date of Birth:Unknown.Place of Birth:Unknown.

Date of Death:879.
[Annales Vedastini (see above); Chronicon Vedastinum
(see below); Annales Blandinienses (see below)]Place of Death:Unknown (buried at Saint-Bertin).The contemporary Annales Vedastini state
that he was buried at Saint-Bertin [Ann. Vedast., s.a.
879, 43-4]. The later Annales Blandinienses have him
buried at Saint-Pierre de Gand [Ann. Bland., Grierson
(1937a), 13]. A late marginal addition to chapter 88 of
Folcwine's history states that Baldwin died after having spent
some time as a monk at Saint-Bertin and that his body was buried
at St. Bertin (Sithiu), but that his heart and
intestines were removed to Saint-Pierre de Gand [MGH SS 13: 623].
If true, this would be one explanation of the disagreement
between Annales Vedastini and Annales Blandinienses
regarding his place of burial, but this explanation is undermined
by the sixteenth century date of this marginal addition (pointed
out me by Peter Stewart). More convincing is the argument of
Philip Grierson. Since the burial of Baldwin's grandson count
Adalolf of Boulogne has the same error, Grierson has suggested
that Annales Blandinienses was using a Saint-Bertin
source for these obituaries which said something like "hic
sepelitur" or "in hoc monasterio sepelitur"
which was then misinterpreted by compiler of Annales
Blandinienses [Grierson (1937a), 17, n. 9].

Probable father:Audacer/Odoacer.While nothing further is known of him, it
seems likely that the name can be accepted, although Audacer's
supposed ancestors must be rejected. See the Commentary section
for a discussion of Baldwin's legendary ancestry.

Mother:Unknown.

Spouse:m. at Auxerre, 863 (eloped 862), Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald, king of the West Franks, emperor, and widow of Æthelwulf (d. 858) and of Æthelbald (d. 860),
kings of the West Saxons.
["..., et ad Autisiodorum civitatem usque pervenit,
ibique filiam suam Iudith, sicut dominus apostolicus eum
petierat, consilio fidelium suorum Balduino, quem secuta fuerat,
legaliter coniugio sociari permisit." (Translation: ...
and he [Charles] arrived in the city of Auxerre; there, just as
the pope had requested, by the advice of his loyal men, he
allowed his daughter Judith to be legally joined in matrimony
with Baldwin, with whom she had run off.) Ann. Bert.,
s.a. 863, 66] For a detailed account of Judith, see Sproemberg
(1936).

Raoul (Rodulfus),
d. 28 June 896, count of Vermandois, 895-896. [often called count
of Cambrai, probably falsely]In 895, Raoul took the castle of
Saint-Quentin, expelling the unnamed son of Theodoricus
["Nam Sancti Quintini castrum, per noctem tradendo eum
abintus, tulerat Rodulfus filio Theoderici." Ann.
Vedast., s.a. 895, 77]. This made him master of Vermandois
(of which Saint-Quentin was the principle stronghold), and, as
was pointed out by Grierson, it is not until after this event
that Raoul is given the title of count by the Annales
Vedastini [Grierson (1937a), 15, n. 2]. Expelled in the next
year by king Eudes ["Post haec Odo rex castrum Sancti
Quintini et Perronam obsedit hominesque Rodulfi inde eiecit."
Ann. Vedast., s.a. 896, 78], Raoul continued to ravage
possessions of the abbacy of Saint-Quentin until he was killed in
battle with count Heribert I on 28 June 896 ["Rodulfus
vero in ira commotus propter castella perdita, dum depraedari non
cessit abbatiam sancti Quintini, ab Heriberto in bello occiditur."
Ann. Vedast., s.a. 896, 78; "Rodulfus comes
interficitur 4. kal. Iulii." Ann. Bland., s.a.
896, 15: 24; "... qui Heribertus Rodulfum comitem,
filium Balduini interfecit nostris temporibus, et non multum post
occisus est a Balduino, satellite Balduini, fratris Rodulfi, qui
Balduinus hucusque in Flandris ducatum tenet." Regino,
s.a. 818 (in a retrospective annal written ca. 906, describing
the family of Bernard, son of Pepin of Italy), MGH SS 1: 567]. It
was on Raoul's defeat that Heribert obtained the region of
Vermandois which gave Heribert's family the name by which it is
now commonly known [see Werner (1960), 88-91]. The claim that
Raoul was count of Cambrai does not appear in sources until the
twelfth century [see Meyer & Longnon (1882), xviii-xix;
Vanderkindere (1902), 1: 287; Grierson (1937a), 15, n. 2], and is
evidently based on confusion between the present Raoul (enemy of
Heribert I) and his kinsman Raoul de Gouy, father of the Raoul
who was the historical prototype of the Raoul de Cambrai
of romance (and also an enemy of the sons of Heribert II of
Vermandois, which no doubt helped to contribute to the confusion
between the two) [see Meyer & Longnon (1882), xviii-xix].

Commentary

The Legendary Ancestors of Baldwin of
Flanders

No contemporary source gives the parentage of
Baldwin I of Flanders. However, by the the late thirteenth
century, an elaborate story had developed which provided Baldwin
with three generations of ancestry back to a certain Lidéric,
who was then said to be the first "forester" of
Flanders, followed in the same position by his son Ingelram,
grandson Audacer, and great-grandson Baldwin, who then became the
first count of Flanders. Widely accepted in earlier times, these
legends have been correctly rejected by modern scholarship.
Fortunately, the surviving rescensions of the genealogies of the
counts of Flanders allow us to see some of the stages by which
this legendary scenario developed, and even though a careful
examination of these shows us that Ingelram and probably also
Lidéric were real individuals, the alleged descent of Baldwin I
from them must be discarded.

Much of the early development of the legend
appears in the various works edited under the collective title of
Genealogiae Comitum Flandriae [MGH SS 9: 302-336, here
abbreviated Gen. Com. Fland.], a collection of nine
items (identified here by Roman numerals I-IX) written by various
authors over a period of several hundred years, having in common
that they involve the genealogy or succession of the counts of
Flanders. The two earliest parts, dating from the tenth century,
say nothing about the parentage of Baldwin I [I. Witger,
Genealogia Arnulfi comitis (pp. 302-4, also an important
source for later Carolingian genealogy); II. De Arnulfo
comite (p. 304)]. However, Witger was emphasizing the
Carolingian ancestry of count Arnulf I, and De Arnulfo comite
was concerned only with certain close relatives of Arnulf I, so
the fact that they do not mention the parentage of Baldwin I does
not mean that they did not know it.

The earliest source giving Baldwin's supposed
genealogy back to Lidéric is Genealogia comitum Flandriae
Bertiniana [Gen. Com. Fland. III, pp. 305-8], which
states that Lidricus, count of Harlebeck, was father of Ingelrannus,
who was father of Audacrus, who was father of Balduinus
Ferreus ["Lidricus Harlebeccensis comes genuit
Ingelrannum. Ingelrannus genuit Audacrum. Audacer genuit
Balduinum Ferreum, qui duxit filiam Karoli Calvi nomine Iudith."
MGH SS 9: 305]. In his introduction to this work, Bethmann dates
this version to the reign of count Robert II (1093-1111) [MGH SS
9: 305], but the existence of two different versions which
diverge after Baldwin V suggests an earlier version composed
under Baldwin V or Baldwin VI [see MGH SS 9: 306]. As discussed
in more detail below, later versions of Gen. Com. Fland.
added major elaborations to this account.

However, Genealogia comitum Flandriae
Bertiniana is not the earliest source to mention Lidéric.
That honor goes to Annales Blandinienses, which, under
the year 836, in an eleventh century hand, states that "Lidricus
comes obiit", followed by "et Arlabeka
sepelitur" added in a twelfth century hand [Grierson
(1937a), 11; Annales Blandinienses has also been edited
by Ludwig Bethmann in MGH SS 5: 20-34, but the fact that "et
Arlabeka sepelitur" was in a later hand is not
indicated]. One of the sources used by the Annales
Blandinienses as we have them today was an earlier version
of the same annals from the middle of the tenth century, called
the tenth century Annales Blandinienses by Grierson
(1937a), which were also used as a source by Annales
Elmarenses, Annales Formosolenses, and Annales
Elnonenses. These annals are also edited in Grierson
(1937a). Annales Elmarenses were first edited by
Grierson, while Monumenta Germaniae Historica contains
editions of Annales Formosolenses by Bethmann [MGH SS 5:
34-6] and of Annales Elnonenses by Pertz [MGH SS 5:
10-20, with the entries in one twelfth century hand separated and
edited as Annales Elnonenses minores (pp.17-20), and the
remaining annals edited as Annales Elnonenses maiores
(pp. 11-17)]. The Annales Blandinienses also
mention Ingelram and Audacer, but with an important difference:
although the affiliation of Audacer as father of Baldwin is
given, no genealogical affiliations are given for Lidéric or
Ingelram. The Chronicon Vedastinum,
discussed in more detail under Audacer below, is another
relatively early source which gives the name of Baldwin's father
without showing any knowledge of his alleged earlier ancestors.
This indicates an earlier tradition in which the name of the
father of Baldwin I was regarded as known, but in which there is
no evidence that any earlier generations in the genealogy were
known.

From this, along with the more detailed
individual discussions for Lidéric, Ingelram, and Audacer which
appear below, two major points emerge:

No later than the middle of the eleventh
century (and probably as early as the tenth), there were
local annalists who believed that Baldwin's father was
named Audacer/Odoacer, but who did not indicate any
significant details about the latter, or any knowledge of
genealogical affiliations for Lidéric or Ingelram.

The chronology indicated for Lidéric and
Ingelram (whose career overlaps ignificantly with that of
Baldwin I), as shown by these early sources, does not fit
well with the claim that they were respectively
great-grandfather and grandfather of Baldwin I of
Flanders.

The natural conclusion is that the name of the father of
Baldwin I belongs to an earlier level of the tradition, while the
alleged affiliation of Lidéric and Ingelram to Audacer and
Baldwin is a later invention, made when the genealogists were
seeking to extend the ancestry beyond Baldwin's father, and found
two usable names for that purpose in their sources. Although not
supported by contemporary evidence, the name of Baldwin's father
can be accepted as probable, but the genealogical links to
Ingelram and Lidéric need to be rejected as later inventions,
even though we can probably accept Lidéric's existence (as we
certainly can for Ingelram). More detailed discussions of
Lidéric, Ingelram, and Audacer follow.

Falsely attributed
great-grandfather:Lidéric,
d. 836, count.
(Associated with Harlebeck in sources of the eleventh century and
later.)

Although Annales Elmarenses was
compiled in the middle of the fourteenth century, it used the now
lost tenth century version of Annales Blandinienses as a
source (as did Annales Formosolenses, compiled in the
late eleventh century), and is thus useful in determining the
contents of these lost annals. Here, the entry "Lidricus
comes obiit", as the surviving Annales
Blandinienses read before the later addition, is probably
the reading of the lost tenth century version. The chronology of Annales
Formosolenses is often careless [see Grierson (1937a), li],
and we may accept the date 836 as the likely date from the lost
annals.

It seems likely that Lidéric was a count of
some local significance to the monastery of Saint-Pierre de Gand.
As discussed below, Lidéric was a significant figure of legend
in the later Flemish sources. However, there is no good reason to
believe that these later legends have any factual basis in the
life of Lidéric himself. The fact that the genealogists started
the line with Lidéric made his name a natural point of focus for
the elaboration of later legends.

Falsely attributed
grandfather (or father):Ingelram,
living 875, evidently d. before 883, count, before 853-870×5,
chamberlain of king Charles the Bald, m. Friderada,
who m. (2) Bernarius, d.
883; and m. (3) Hugues, son of king Lothair
II.For Ingelram, the above entry under 836 in Annales
Elmarenses which states (of Lidéric) that "Cui
successit filius eius Ingelramnus" can be attributed as
a late addition, as the Annales Elmarenses were composed
at a time when the legendary genealogy of Baldwin of Flanders was
already current. This leaves us with two entries from Annales
Blandinienses which mention Ingelram.

Since the name is added in a late hand, the 856
entry has no early authority. Except for the word "abbate",
the 875 entry agrees with a similar (but more detailed) entry in Annales
Bertiniani (quoted below), showing clearly that Ingelram can
be identified with the man of that name who was chamberlain of
king Charles the Bald.

Count Engilramnus is indicated as
being count somewhere in the third missicatum in a
capitulary of king Charles the Bald in November 853 ["Imino
episcopus, Adelardus abba, Waltcaudus, Odelricus, missi in
Noviomiso, Vermendiso, Adertiso, Curtriciso, Flandra, comitatibus
Engilramni, et in comitatibus Waltcaudi." MGH Leg. 1:
426; see below for a more detailed discussion]. He appears also
in a capitulary of Charles the Bald on 21 March 858 [MGH Leg. 1:
457], and when Charles made a pact with his brother Louis
(Ludwig) "the German" in 864, he was named (along with
Hincmar of Reims) as a guarantor on the behalf of king Charles [Ann.
Fuld. 62]. In 868, he was sent with gifts to king Salomon of
Brittany [Ann. Bert. 97], and he acted as a guarantor
again in 870 [capitulary of a meeting of Charles and Louis, 6
March 870, MGH Leg. 1: 516]. In 875, having been deprived of his
honors due to the influence of queen Richilde, he persuaded Louis
to devastate the kingdom of Charles ["Hludovicus vero,
persuadente Engilramno, quondam Caroli regis camerario et
domestico, suasione Richildis reginae ab honoribus deiecto et a
sua familiaritate abiecto, cum hoste et filio aequivico suo
Hludowico usque ad Attiniacum venit. Ad quem obsistendum primores
regni Karoli, iubente Richilde regina, sacramento se
confirmaverunt. Quod non adtenderunt, sed ex sua parte regnum
Karoli pessumdantes, hostili more devastaverunt." Ann.
Bert. 127; Ann. Bland. (quoted above)]. The
information on Ingelram's wife and child comes from Regino's
chronicle for the year 883, which states that in that year,
Hugues (son of king Lothair II) ordered a certain noble named
Bernarius to be killed, and then married his widow. Regino also
states that before being united to Bernarius, she had been
married to the potens vir Ingelram, by whom they had a
daughter who was later married to count Ricuin ["Hoc
etiam tempore idem Hugo [son of Lothair II] Wicbertum
comitem, qui ab ineunte aetate sibi faverat, interfecit; paucis
dehinc interpositis diebus, Bernarium, nobilem virum sibique
fidelissimum, dolo trucidari iussit, pulchritudine illius captus
uxoris, quam absque momento sibi in matrimonium iungit. Vocabatur
autem mulier Friderada, quae antequam Bernario sociaretur,
copulata fuerat Engilramno potenti viro, ex quo filiam peperit,
quam postmodum Richwinus comes in coniugium accepit, quam etiam
propter stuprum commissum idem comes decollari iussit."
Regino, s.a. 883, MGH SS 1: 594; for more on count Ricuin, see Ricuin's page]. Although the Ingelram of this record is not
explicitly identified with the former chamberlain of Charles the
Bald, the description of potens vir suggests this
identification.

Over which regions was Ingelram count?:
the Capitulary of Servais.

The Capitulary of Servais was enacted by
Charles the Bald in November 853, assigning missi over
twelve districts to enforce measures from an agreement between
Charles and his brother Lothaire. Of the twelve missicati,
the third missicatum is the one of interest with regard
to Ingelram:

The words "comitatibus Engilramni et
in comitatibus Waltcaudi" have been interpreted in
different ways. Vanderkindere (1897), 98-100, interpreted these
words in such a way that Ingelram and Waltcaud would each be
counts over some of the listed regions and some of the unlisted
regions, assigning Waltcaud as count of Noyon, Vermandois,
Artois, and Ostrevant, and Ingelram as count of Gand, Coutraisis,
and Tournaisis. However, this interpretation takes significant
libeties with the language, and has been rejected by later
authors. The two interpretations which seem consistent with the
language of the entry would be the following:

1. the words "comitatibus Engliramni"
are in apposition to the names of the five preceding pagi, in
which case Ingelram would be count of these five pagi, and
Waltcaud would be count of the remaining pagi of the missicatum.
[L. C. Bethmann, in his edition of Genealogiae comitum
Flandriae, MGH SS 9: 305, n. 6; Sproemberg (1935), 19-20]

2. The words "comitatibus Engilramni
et in comitatibus Waltcaudi" should be interpreted as
referring to pagi distinct from the ones listed earlier. [Ganshof
(1937), 369-370, without specifying which regions were those of
Ingelram; Grierson (1938), 249-250, assigning the pagi of
Mélantois, Caribant, Pevèle, and Ostrevant as those of
Ingelram, and citing his earlier 1935 note, which I have not
seen.]

If the first of these alternatives were true,
it would then make it likely that Ingelram was still count of
Flanders in 870 (when he was still in favor), and it would then
be difficult to regard Baldwin I as being count of Flanders in
862. However, although the first alternative would be
grammatically acceptable, the arguments in favor of the second
alternative seem strong. If the first alternative were true, one
would expect to see a more uniform account by also listing
Waltcaud's pagi in apposition to his name, and it is more natural
to assume that all items on the list refer to separate regions.
In addition, if one looks at the probable additional regions
which would be a part of "missicatum" III, the first
interpretation would result in the regions assigned to Ingelram
and Waltcaud being disconnected [see the map in Vanderkindere
(1897), between pp. 91 & 92]. Thus, it looks likely that pagus
Flandrensis was not among the regions over which Ingelram
was count, and in any case, as remarked by Ganshof, there is no
good reason to exclude the possibility that Baldwin I was already
count of Flanders at his first appearance in 862 [Ganshof (1937),
371].

Was Ingelram lay-abbot of Saint-Pierre
de Gand?

Ingelram does not appear in the (possibly
incomplete) list of abbots in Catalogus abbatus Blandinensium
[MGH SS 15 (part 2): 644-5]. Of the two entries in Annales
Blandinienses mentioned above, the 856 entry only mentions
Ingelram's name in a late entry over an erasure, and can be
discarded. Philip Grierson suggested that the erased name was
that of Robert [Grierson (1939), 308, 311], known from the
catalogue of abbots of Saint-Pierre de Gand (St. Peter's, Ghent)
to be the successor as abbot to (Charlemagne's biographer)
Einhard ["Ante Ainardum Scoranus et Folradus, post
Ainardum Rotbertus." Catalogus abbatum
Blandiniensium, MGH SS 15 (pt. 2): 645], and whom Grierson
identifies with Robert the Strong, who died in 866 [Grierson
(1939), 304-6]. Thus, the sole authority which would make
Ingelram abbot is the entry for 875 in Annales Blandinienses,
which adds the title of abbot to information which is already
known from Annales Bertiniani. On the basis of this
entry, it has often been accepted that Ingelram was lay-abbot of
Saint-Pierre de Gand [e.g., Vanderkindere (1897), 99; Prou
(1920), 57-9; Sproemberg (1935), 27-8; Ganshof (1937), 373-9],
while Grierson argued that he was not abbot [Grierson (1939),
308-9]. The principal difficulty in accepting the statement of
the 875 entry is that Ingelram was unlikely to have been abbot in
that year, for the contemporary Annales Bertiniani for
that year show that he had already been deprived of his honores.

Ingelram as the alleged father (instead
of grandfather) of Baldwin I.

Because of the chronological difficulties of
making Ingelram the grandfather of Baldwin, it has been suggested
that Audacer did not exist as a separate individual, but was just
a cognomen of Baldwin [who is called "vir audax"
by Wimann, MGH SS 13: 711; see above], thus placing Baldwin as
the supposed son and successor of Ingelram [see, e.g., Bethmann,
MGH SS 9: 305, n. 6]. However, this supposed father-son
relationship does not fit well with the overlapping careers of
Ingelram and Baldwin, and it overlooks the fact that sources
giving Audacer/Odoacer as the name of Baldwin's father predate
those which claim a genealogical link between Ingelram and
Baldwin. This attempt to "fix" an unreliable source
should be discarded.

Three of these annals add Baldwin's parentage
to the account of Judith's elopement:
862. "Iudith secuta est Baldwinum Ferreum, filium
Audacri." [Ann. Bland., Grierson (1937a), 12]
861. "Iudich, filia Karoli Calvi, secuta est Baldwinum
Ferreum, filium Audacri." [Ann. Elmarenses,
Grierson (1937a), 82]
862. "Balduinus [Ferreus], Odacri
filius, Iudith, Caroli regis filiam, uxorem duxit, illa illam
sequente." [Ann. Elnonenses ("minores"),
Grierson (1937a), 146; "Ferreus" added in
another hand]
The first two of these appear to go back to an entry in their
common source which is the same as the entry in Annales
Blandinienses: "Iudith secuta est Baldwinum
Ferreum, filium Audacri." The words "Iudith
secuta est Baldwinum" look like a very abbreviated
version of the account of Annales Bertiniani (see
above). Grierson suggests that the information about Baldwin's
parentage came from lost annals of Saint-Bertin which are known
to have been one of the sources of these annals [Grierson
(1937a), 12, n. 5].

All four of the annals edited in Grierson
(1937a) give Baldwin's parentage in his obituary:
879. "Baldwinus filius Audacri obiit; Blandinio
sepelitur." [Ann. Bland., Grierson (1937a),
13]
879. "Obiit Balduinus comes Flandrie, filius Audacri, et
in ecclesia sancti Bertini sepelitur. Cui successit filius eius
Baldwinus Calvus" [Ann. Elmarenses, Grierson
(1937a), 83]
877. "Baldwinus filius Audacri obiit; [Carolus
Calvus obiit], Blandinio sepelitur." [Ann.
Formos., Grierson (1937a), 125; the words in brackets are a
separate entry which has intruded into the middle of Baldwin's
obituary]
879. "Balduinus, Odacri filius, obiit." [Ann.
Elnonenses ("minores"), Grierson (1937a),
147]
Here the entry from Annales Formosolenses has resulted
from the careless combination of annals from two different years
(877 and 879), with one entry ("Carolus Calvus obiit"
for 877) intruding into the middle of an entry identical to the
879 entry from Annales Blandinienses: "Baldwinus
filius Audacri obiit; Blandinio sepelitur." As already
mentioned above under the date of Baldwin's death, Grierson has
suggested that the original entry was compiled in Saint-Bertin
and had something like "hic" or "in
hoc monasterio" in place of "Blandinio",
the latter being an error [Grierson (1937a), 17, n. 9].

The Chronicon Vedastinum, an eleventh
century compilation, also gives this parentage of Baldwin ["Balduinus,
Audacri filius, moritur et Sithiu sepelitur." Chronicon
Vedastinum, s.a. 879, MGH SS 13: 709], adding the parentage
to the information taken from its evident source, Annales
Vedastini (see above). Also, from the same source, we have
an entry apparently making Baldwin the son of an eighth century
man named Odacer ["... ubi Karolus rex Gramannum atque
Odacrum, patrem Balduini comitis Flandrensium, misit." Chronicon
Vedastinum, s.a. 788, MGH SS 13: 705; this entry is dated to
the tenth century by Dhondt (1940), 304], who does in fact appear
in a similar contemporary annal, but without Baldwin as his son
["..., et fuerunt ibi missi domni Caroli regis
Grahamannus et Audacrus cum aliquibus Francis."
Annales Laurissenses, s.a. 788, MGH SS 1: 174]. It seems
clear from the chronology that this Odoacer from 788 was not
Baldwin's father. However, it does appear that the compiler of
this chronicle at least thought that he knew the name of
Baldwin's father, but did not notice how unlikely a father this
particular Odoacer was when he added Baldwin's name to the entry.

Thus, in contrast to Lidéric and Ingelram, who are not
genealogically linked to Baldwin in the earliest records in which
they appear, and do not become linked to him until the last half
of the eleventh century, Audacer's name is given as the father of
Baldwin from the first appearance of Audacer's name in the
records, which appear to go back to the tenth century. Thus, it
is likely that the name Audacer/Odoacer can be accepted as the
name of Baldwin's father. Nothing is known of Audacer beyond his
status as Baldwin's father, unless there is some truth to the
hunting rights from abbot Einhard mentioned below.

The development of the legend

Although the above comments are sufficient to
reject the appearance of Lidéric and Ingelram in Baldwin's
genealogy, it is interesting to indicate the development of some
of the later embellishments to the story. In the twelfth century,
Lambert of Saint-Omer made some additions to the previous version
[Lamberti genealogia comitum Flandriae, Gen. Com.
Fland. V, pp. 308-313], which set the year 792 as the
beginning date of Lidéric's rule, and stated that in that year,
Lidéric saw that Flanders was vacant, uncultivated, and
well-wooded, and occupied it ["Anno ab incarnatione
Domini 792. Karolo Magno regnante in Francia, Lidricus
Harlebeccensis comes, videns Flandriam vacuam et incultam ac
nemorosam, occupavit eam. Hic genuit Ingelramum comitem ..."
MGH SS 9: 309; and similarly in Flandria Generosa (Gen.
Com. Fland. VI, pp. 313-334)].

The story that Baldwin's predecessors were
"foresters" of Flanders comes from the chronicler John
of Thielrode, writing in 1294 [Iohannis de Thielrode
genealogis comitum Flandriae (Gen. Com. Fland. VIII),
MGH SS 9: 335]:

"Tempore Balduini Flandria fit
comitatus, et Balduinus primus comes. Antecessores sui
fuerunt forestarii Flandrie sub rege Francie, sicut legimus
in cronicis Francorum. Lidricus et Audacer impetraverunt ab
abbate Heinardo monasterii sancti Bavonis licentiam venandi
in silva que Heinarstryst nuncupatur, modo Loe dicitur, sub
tali conditione, quod de decimia bestia unam darent abbati et
suis successoribus." (Translation: Flanders became
a county in the time of Balduinus, and Balduinus
was the first count. His predecessors were foresters under
the king of France, just as we read in chronicles of the
Franks. Lidricus and Audacer obtained
license from Heinardus, abbot of the monastery of
St. Bavo, to hunt in the woods called Heinarstriist,
now called Loe, subject to the condition that they
give one-tenth of the beasts to the abbot and to his
successors.)

This account was printed again with John of
Thielrode's entire chronicle [MGH SS 25: 574], which, under the
account of abbot Einhard, gave the statement of hunting rights
with minor changes in wording ["Heinardus abbas
concessit licentiam Lidrico primo forestario Flandrie et Audacro
venandi in silva Sancti Bavonis que Heimarsttrist nuncupatur, sub
conditione, ut de omni venatione sua darent abbati decimus cervum
vel bestium." Iohannis de Thilrode Chronicon,
MGH SS 25: 566-7]. Here, Heinardus is the famous
Einhard, biographer of Charlemagne, who was abbot of Saint-Bavo
de Gand from 814×5 until his death on 12 March 840 [see Grierson
(1937c), 44-5; Einhard's abbacy is falsely dated to 826-844 by
the fourteenth century Annales S. Bavonis Gandensis, MGH
SS 2: 187, and by Chronicon sancti Bavonis, s.a. 844, Corpus
Chron. Fland.1: 483, which also follows John
of Thielrode in mentioning the alleged grant by Einhard, but with
Ingelram replacing Audacer ("Ipse Heynardus concessit
Lidrico Harlebeccensi et Ingelramo forestariis venandi in silva
sancti Bavonis, ...")]. Grierson refers to the story of
the hunting rights as "palpably false" [Grierson
(1937c), 34], but it is difficult to see why the story would have
been fabricated in its present wording, which appears to place
Lidéric and Audacer as contemporaries. This is consistent with
the evidence from earlier sources that Lidéric died in 836, but
does not fit so well with the claim that Lidéric was Audacer's
grandfather. Thus, even if this information were genuine, it
would further undermine the inclusion of Lidéric and Ingelram
among the ancestors of Baldwin I.

In the work of John of Ypres, writing in the
fourteenth century, we find an exotic origin for Lidéric, whose
activities are extended back to the time of Charles Martel, and
who is provided with a wife who is the daughter of Gerard de
Roussillon, another figure of legend [MGH SS 25: 764]:

"Dum Sarraceni sic ab Hispania
venirent ad Eudonis mandatum, miles quidam iuvenis
christianus de partibus Ulixibone seu Portugallie, regia
stirpe progenitus, Liedricus nomine, despectis parentibus,
qui cum illis de patria ad legem perfidi transierant
Machometi, ad Karolum Tuditem et Gerardum de Rossilione se
contulit, ut sacri baptismatis christianque fidei Deo pacta
servaret, et sub Karolo militans, multa probitatis opera
gessit. Et Karolo predicto carus effectus est, sibi toto vite
sue tempore servivit et filio suo Pupino post eum regi. Cui
postea Karolus Magnus terram Flandrie dedit. Ipse est a quo
Flandrie comites descenderunt. Ipse uxorem habuit filiam
Gerardi de Rossilione predicti, de qua genuit filium
Ingelramnum, militem probum et prudentem, suum Flandrie
successorem." (Translation [with comments in
brackets]: Thus, when the Saracens came from Spain to the
command of Eudes [of Aquitaine], a certain young Christian
knight from the region of Lisbon, or Portugal, of royal
descent, named Lidéric, despising his parents, who with
those of their country had converted to the faithless law of
Mohammed, went to Charles Tudites [i.e., Martel] and
Gerard de Roussillon, in order to receive the rite of baptism
and to serve the Christian faith by agreement with God, and
serving as a soldier under Charles, performed much honest
service. And he became dear to the said Charles, and served
him during his entire career, and also his son Pepin, king
after him. Afterward, Charlemagne gave him the land of
Flanders. He is the one from whom the counts of Flanders
descend. He [Lidéric] married a daughter of the aforesaid
Gerard de Roussillon, by whom he had a son Ingelram, an
honest and prudent knight, his successor in Flanders.)

Later embellishments expanded the genealogy to
include additional fictional generations before Lidéric of
Harlebeck, including a seventh century count Salvardus
of Dijon. The story also gained a giant named Rinardus,
an earlier Lidricus le Buc, the first forester, his
successor Antonius, and so forth [see, e.g., MGH SS 9:
316]. Some of these more elaborate later inventions have been
accepted by some of the less critical genealogists of the
Forester family, who have used the office of "forester"
supposedly held by Lidéric to trace members of the Forester
family back through the counts of Flanders. Such claims have no
historical basis.

Falsely attributed
daughter: Guinidilda,
m. Guifred, count of Barcelona, 870-897.Gesta comitum Barcinonensium (of
which this part was composed shortly after 1160) states that
Guifred impregnated a daughter (unnamed) of the count of Flanders
(also unnamed) and later married her [see RHF 9: 68]. Later
authors have expanded the story to identify this girl with
Guifred's known wife Guinidilda, with the count of Flanders in
question being variously identified as Baldwin I or Baldwin II
[e.g., Anselme 2: 714]. There is no good reason to accept this
late and legendary source on this point. The legend is probably
modelled on the story of Baldwin and Judith [see Freedman (1988),
15-6, 18 n. 54].

Falsely attributed
daughter: NN, mother of a certain Gautier.This recent error, from the Medieval
Lands database, is based on the
legendary and unreliable history of the monastery of Waulsort,
which states that a certain Walterus was the son of a
sister of Rodulfus, count of Cambrai [Historia
Walciodorensis monasterii, c. 8, MGH SS 14: 508], evidently
misled by the mistaken footnote of the editor, G. Waitz, who
identifies this Rodulfus with the son of Baldwin I [MGH
SS 14: 507, n. 2]. However, even if the statement of Historia
Walciodorensis monasterii could be regarded as reliable, the
Raoul de Cambrai who was uncle of Gautier would be Raoul de Gouy,
and not Baldwin's son [see above under Raoul, son of Baldwin I].

Other claims

Supposed relatives (uncertain,
source not given):
Counts of Laon, ninth century (under Charles the Bald).This claim has been made in the secondary
literature, but the basis is unclear. For example, François-L.
Ganshof states of Baldwin I, "Sa famille était peut-être
originaire de Lorraine; elle était apparentée à un lignage
connu qui a fourni à Charles le Chauve des comtes de Laon."
[Ganshof (1949), 15-6]; David Nicholas makes a similar claim,
saying that "He [Baldwin I] was the son of one Audacer,
whose name suggests cognates with a family that furnished three
counts of pagi between Scheldt and Leie. They were
evidently related to the counts of Laon." [Nicholas (1992),
16] The counts of Laon in question would appear to be Adalhelm
and his son Waltger, relatives of the Robertines/Capets [e.g.,
"... Waltgarius comes, nepos Odonis regis, filius
scilicet avunculi eius Adalhelmi, ..." Regino, Chronicon,
s.a. 892, MGH SS 1: 604]. It is not clear whether a remark of
Heather Tanner about events in 892 is related to these other two
comments or is an error of another sort ["Baldwin (II),
supported by his relative Waltger of Laon, ...", Tanner
(2004), 53; see the page of Baldwin II].

See also the page of Baldwin I's son Baldwin II for some falsely attributed relatives of the latter.

Compiled by Stewart BaldwinThis page is based in part on a very preliminary version
which was written before I had obtained copies of some of the
more important secondary sources, and was posted to the
soc.genealogy.medieval/GEN-MEDIEVAL internet newsgroup/mailing
list. I would like to thank Peter Stewart and Nathaniel Taylor
for their comments on that preliminary version.
Originally uploaded 12 October 2006.